NARRATIVE
“…[I]nformation literacy as an educational reform movement will realize its potential only through a richer, more complex set of core ideas.” - from the ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
The fact that the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Board of Directors decided to replace the Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education (2000) with the more theoretical Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in 2016 shows how much the information environment and society in general have changed over the past two decades (ACRL Board of Directors, 2016). With so much information pouring in from so many sources, it is harder than ever to know what is real and what is not, what (and whom) to trust and what (and whom) to ignore. Source authorship is becoming more and more expansive by the day, with people from all backgrounds leveraging the power of the internet to challenge traditional ideas about what constitutes scholarship and to demand that their voices be heard and valued in whatever medium they choose to express themselves. In this dynamically changing environment, information literacy dichotomies that may have appeared straightforward in the past (e.g., "popular vs. scholarly," "current vs. historical”) (American Library Association, 2000) are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
As a woman of color, a student of library studies, and a former student of foreign languages, I am very familiar with how differently information can be conveyed in different cultural contexts, as well as how it can be distorted and manipulated to mislead people and reinforce existing misconceptions. Librarians must address these issues head on when teaching students to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. At the same time, we have to question what “reliable” means in a society of unequal power relations, and how that definition is impacted by systemic bias and hegemonies that privilege some voices over others.
“…[I]nformation literacy as an educational reform movement will realize its potential only through a richer, more complex set of core ideas.” - from the ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
The fact that the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Board of Directors decided to replace the Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education (2000) with the more theoretical Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in 2016 shows how much the information environment and society in general have changed over the past two decades (ACRL Board of Directors, 2016). With so much information pouring in from so many sources, it is harder than ever to know what is real and what is not, what (and whom) to trust and what (and whom) to ignore. Source authorship is becoming more and more expansive by the day, with people from all backgrounds leveraging the power of the internet to challenge traditional ideas about what constitutes scholarship and to demand that their voices be heard and valued in whatever medium they choose to express themselves. In this dynamically changing environment, information literacy dichotomies that may have appeared straightforward in the past (e.g., "popular vs. scholarly," "current vs. historical”) (American Library Association, 2000) are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
As a woman of color, a student of library studies, and a former student of foreign languages, I am very familiar with how differently information can be conveyed in different cultural contexts, as well as how it can be distorted and manipulated to mislead people and reinforce existing misconceptions. Librarians must address these issues head on when teaching students to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. At the same time, we have to question what “reliable” means in a society of unequal power relations, and how that definition is impacted by systemic bias and hegemonies that privilege some voices over others.
The ACRL currently defines information literacy as “the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” (Framework, 2015). As an MLIS student, I have studied information literacy concepts from multiple scholarly viewpoints. I have learned strategies for accessing and analyzing resources. I have learned instructional strategies that will aid me in the teaching of information literacy, and I have had the opportunity to practice these strategies in class and in the practicum environment.
Above all, I have learned that information literacy is a lifelong process that is never completely mastered by anyone. As the noted Brazilian educator Paulo Freire so rightly stated: “It is really impossible to teach without learning as well as learning without teaching. We cannot separate one from the other; we create a violence when we try” (1985, p. 16-17). When we teach and learn in collaboration with students, we resist the hegemonic thinking that can lead to the denigration and silencing of the less powerful. Studying LIS has prepared me to promote information literacy skills in others and shown me the need to embrace a humble, incessant inquisitiveness as I strive to maintain my own information literacy skills.
Using Sources
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities identify interested parties, such as scholars, organizations, governments, and industries, who might produce information about a topic and then determine how to access that information. – “Searching as Strategic Exploration” frame
In Dr. James Carmichael’s information sources and services class, I reviewed research databases and print reference books to determine their usefulness and scope. Dr. Carmichael told us what factors to consider when assessing a resource in relation to user and organizational needs (e.g., “completeness,” “ease of use,” “price,” “durability,” “illustrations”). While considering these factors, I experimented with databases I had not heard of before and practiced using advanced Boolean searching techniques. The assigned search exercises made me think about the benefits and disadvantages of various resources and how library users might engage with them. Some of my skepticism about Wikipedia was challenged when I found that Wikipedia entries were actually more complete than traditional scholarly sources in some cases. While using the printed atlas resources, I observed how heavy they were and thought about the accessibility issues this might pose for library users and staff with limited upper-body strength.
Dr. Carmichael also gave us real-world reference scenarios to consider. How do you help someone with a question for which there is no definitive answer? How can you assist someone needing in-depth research assistance 30 minutes before library closing time? These examples challenged me to think about how I would help the library user and how I might feel in that user’s position.
Throughout the semester, I used the knowledge I was gaining to create a LibGuide for students on the topic of atheism in the United States. Because the LibGuide is a platform for both introducing and exploring resources, it serves as both a teaching and a research tool. When designing the LibGuide, I applied the Universal Design for Learning instructional model I had learned about in Professor Daniel Martin’s media production services class. Since this model emphasizes the use of multiple strategies to engage learners, I incorporated a slide show, TED talks, film database links, online articles, podcasts, and user polls into the LibGuide, along with book lists.
The experiences I had in Dr. Carmichael’s class have made me more knowledgeable about information search strategies and have prepared me to help students master them.
Questioning Authority
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities question traditional notions of granting authority and recognize the value of diverse ideas and worldviews” – “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” frame
Dr. LaTesha Velez’s information literacy class was the one in which I first engaged with the ACRL Framework. The Framework highlights the relationship between information literacy and critical thinking skills. This link is important for librarians to acknowledge, since part of our role is to promote independent inquiry among library users.
What is especially significant about the Framework is its emphasis on key “understandings” rather than applied skills. This approach to information literacy was promoted in several of the readings I did for Dr. Velez’s class. To cite one example, librarian Jonathan Cope noted that “the development of students’ capacity to pose thoughtful questions (as opposed to clear answers) is as important as their ability to locate, access, organize, evaluate, and apply information in the research process” (2009, p. 16).
Above all, I have learned that information literacy is a lifelong process that is never completely mastered by anyone. As the noted Brazilian educator Paulo Freire so rightly stated: “It is really impossible to teach without learning as well as learning without teaching. We cannot separate one from the other; we create a violence when we try” (1985, p. 16-17). When we teach and learn in collaboration with students, we resist the hegemonic thinking that can lead to the denigration and silencing of the less powerful. Studying LIS has prepared me to promote information literacy skills in others and shown me the need to embrace a humble, incessant inquisitiveness as I strive to maintain my own information literacy skills.
Using Sources
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities identify interested parties, such as scholars, organizations, governments, and industries, who might produce information about a topic and then determine how to access that information. – “Searching as Strategic Exploration” frame
In Dr. James Carmichael’s information sources and services class, I reviewed research databases and print reference books to determine their usefulness and scope. Dr. Carmichael told us what factors to consider when assessing a resource in relation to user and organizational needs (e.g., “completeness,” “ease of use,” “price,” “durability,” “illustrations”). While considering these factors, I experimented with databases I had not heard of before and practiced using advanced Boolean searching techniques. The assigned search exercises made me think about the benefits and disadvantages of various resources and how library users might engage with them. Some of my skepticism about Wikipedia was challenged when I found that Wikipedia entries were actually more complete than traditional scholarly sources in some cases. While using the printed atlas resources, I observed how heavy they were and thought about the accessibility issues this might pose for library users and staff with limited upper-body strength.
Dr. Carmichael also gave us real-world reference scenarios to consider. How do you help someone with a question for which there is no definitive answer? How can you assist someone needing in-depth research assistance 30 minutes before library closing time? These examples challenged me to think about how I would help the library user and how I might feel in that user’s position.
Throughout the semester, I used the knowledge I was gaining to create a LibGuide for students on the topic of atheism in the United States. Because the LibGuide is a platform for both introducing and exploring resources, it serves as both a teaching and a research tool. When designing the LibGuide, I applied the Universal Design for Learning instructional model I had learned about in Professor Daniel Martin’s media production services class. Since this model emphasizes the use of multiple strategies to engage learners, I incorporated a slide show, TED talks, film database links, online articles, podcasts, and user polls into the LibGuide, along with book lists.
The experiences I had in Dr. Carmichael’s class have made me more knowledgeable about information search strategies and have prepared me to help students master them.
Questioning Authority
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities question traditional notions of granting authority and recognize the value of diverse ideas and worldviews” – “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” frame
Dr. LaTesha Velez’s information literacy class was the one in which I first engaged with the ACRL Framework. The Framework highlights the relationship between information literacy and critical thinking skills. This link is important for librarians to acknowledge, since part of our role is to promote independent inquiry among library users.
What is especially significant about the Framework is its emphasis on key “understandings” rather than applied skills. This approach to information literacy was promoted in several of the readings I did for Dr. Velez’s class. To cite one example, librarian Jonathan Cope noted that “the development of students’ capacity to pose thoughtful questions (as opposed to clear answers) is as important as their ability to locate, access, organize, evaluate, and apply information in the research process” (2009, p. 16).
Posing questions was at the heart of every exercise we completed for Dr. Velez’s class. She emphasized the importance of challenging authority, something I believe is doubly important when the supposed authoritative source concerns minority and marginalized individuals. In the case of minorities and the marginalized, the scholar’s own personal biases can be compounded by systemic biases such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. All of these biases can lead to a simplistic analysis of people's experiences.
We had the chance to challenge authority repeatedly throughout the semester, through discussion board posts where we debated the merits and shortcomings of library scholars’ arguments, and in our group presentations where we were required to contrast the argument presented in a class reading with an opposing argument from another source. One topic we discussed in-depth was the merits of scholarly peer review, a process that is often seen as indispensable to quality scholarship but is frequently biased against new ways of thinking (Donovan & O’Donnell, 2013). The class discussions taught me the value of approaching information literacy as both a collaborative, communal exercise and an individual, intellectual activity.
At the end of the semester, I had two opportunities to question authority in a teaching context. When presenting an infographic to the class on incarcerated women and literacy, I explained how think tank reports on U.S. incarceration statistics often focus on the overall decline in the incarceration rate while glossing over the increases in female incarceration. During my podcast on incarcerated women, I discussed how a writing program that includes incarcerated women operates in the spirit of the ACRL Framework by challenging traditional publishing practices. These teaching opportunities, the class readings, and the discussion board experiences, greatly deepened my understanding of the “Scholarship as Conversation” and “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” components of the ACRL Framework.
Entering the Scholarly Arena
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities see themselves as contributors to scholarship rather than only consumers of it. – “Scholarship as Conversation” frame
In 2013, librarians Carrie Donovan and Sara O’Donnell stated: “The creative force of authorship, in which students put pieces of themselves out into the world and become part of the fabric of the world, provides the ultimate source of scholarly empowerment” (p. 127). The knowledge creation aspect of information literacy requires that students be able to both locate information and use it to voice their perspectives. In preparing students to voice their views in a public forum, librarians need to help them understand both the ACRL Framework concepts and specific legal issues related to publishing.
The “Information Has Value” frame figured prominently in many of the discussions we had in Dr. Velez’s class about legal issues pertaining to information dissemination. We talked about the importance of having a basic knowledge of copyright law when practicing public authorship, paying special attention to the fair use doctrine, which allows for authors to engage in the limited use of copyrighted work without asking permission of the original author, provided certain conditions are met (“More information,” 2019). Since there is no set “definition” of fair use, each author or publisher must assess their situation in light of the doctrine to determine whether they think their use of copyrighted material meets the fair-use criteria. We also discussed the concept of public domain, which refers to the legal right to use a work without crediting an author.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to apply and expand upon my knowledge of these concepts during a volunteer practicum experience at Duke University Libraries. I was part of the team that works on Project Vox, a digital scholarship project highlighting the accomplishments of early modern women philosophers (“About the project,” n.d.). One of my responsibilities was to assess the copyright status of the project’s website images. During the practicum, I attended a workshop on fair use and worked closely with the libraries’ copyright and information consultant. One important lesson I learned is that some European museums assert copyright over items that might otherwise be considered within the public domain due to their age. This knowledge guided my work and the copyright assessment recommendations I gave to the project team.
While working on Project Vox, I saw the “Scholarship as Conversation” idea practiced repeatedly in the context of student scholarship. Much of the content for the project’s website is managed and created by students, including the site’s academic blog, which has gained national popularity. The blog has featured content by undergraduate students, at least one of whom I know has presented their Project Vox research abroad. The project will serve as a model for me when teaching information literacy to others and strengthening my own competencies.
LEARNING ARTIFACTS
References
1. About the Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://projectvox.org/about-the-project/
2. ACRL Board of Directors. (2016, June 25). ACRL board takes action on information literacy standards. ACRL Insider. Retrieved from https://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/archives/12126
3. American Library Association. (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Retrieved from https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/7668/ACRL%20Information%20Literacy%20Competency%20Standards%20for%20Higher%20Education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
4. Cope, J. (2009). Information literacy and social power. In Critical Library Instruction Theories and Methods (Vol. 13, No. 28, pp. 13-28). Litwin Books in association with GSE Research.
5. Donovan, C., & O’Donnell, S. (2013). The tyranny of tradition: How information paradigms limit librarians’ teaching and student scholarship. In Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional Praxis (Vol. 121, No. 140, pp. 121-140). Litwin Books in association with GSE Research.
6. Framework for information literacy for higher education. (February 9, 2015). American Library Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (Accessed April 17, 2019) Document ID: b910a6c4-6c8a-0d44-7dbc-a5dcbd509e3f
7. Freire, P. (1985). Reading the World and Reading the Word: An Interview with Paulo Freire. Language Arts, 62(1), 15-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.alumniproxy.lib.duke.edu/stable/41405241
8. More information on fair use. (2019, March). Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
9. Universal Design for Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/designing-your-course/universal-design-learning
We had the chance to challenge authority repeatedly throughout the semester, through discussion board posts where we debated the merits and shortcomings of library scholars’ arguments, and in our group presentations where we were required to contrast the argument presented in a class reading with an opposing argument from another source. One topic we discussed in-depth was the merits of scholarly peer review, a process that is often seen as indispensable to quality scholarship but is frequently biased against new ways of thinking (Donovan & O’Donnell, 2013). The class discussions taught me the value of approaching information literacy as both a collaborative, communal exercise and an individual, intellectual activity.
At the end of the semester, I had two opportunities to question authority in a teaching context. When presenting an infographic to the class on incarcerated women and literacy, I explained how think tank reports on U.S. incarceration statistics often focus on the overall decline in the incarceration rate while glossing over the increases in female incarceration. During my podcast on incarcerated women, I discussed how a writing program that includes incarcerated women operates in the spirit of the ACRL Framework by challenging traditional publishing practices. These teaching opportunities, the class readings, and the discussion board experiences, greatly deepened my understanding of the “Scholarship as Conversation” and “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” components of the ACRL Framework.
Entering the Scholarly Arena
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities see themselves as contributors to scholarship rather than only consumers of it. – “Scholarship as Conversation” frame
In 2013, librarians Carrie Donovan and Sara O’Donnell stated: “The creative force of authorship, in which students put pieces of themselves out into the world and become part of the fabric of the world, provides the ultimate source of scholarly empowerment” (p. 127). The knowledge creation aspect of information literacy requires that students be able to both locate information and use it to voice their perspectives. In preparing students to voice their views in a public forum, librarians need to help them understand both the ACRL Framework concepts and specific legal issues related to publishing.
The “Information Has Value” frame figured prominently in many of the discussions we had in Dr. Velez’s class about legal issues pertaining to information dissemination. We talked about the importance of having a basic knowledge of copyright law when practicing public authorship, paying special attention to the fair use doctrine, which allows for authors to engage in the limited use of copyrighted work without asking permission of the original author, provided certain conditions are met (“More information,” 2019). Since there is no set “definition” of fair use, each author or publisher must assess their situation in light of the doctrine to determine whether they think their use of copyrighted material meets the fair-use criteria. We also discussed the concept of public domain, which refers to the legal right to use a work without crediting an author.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to apply and expand upon my knowledge of these concepts during a volunteer practicum experience at Duke University Libraries. I was part of the team that works on Project Vox, a digital scholarship project highlighting the accomplishments of early modern women philosophers (“About the project,” n.d.). One of my responsibilities was to assess the copyright status of the project’s website images. During the practicum, I attended a workshop on fair use and worked closely with the libraries’ copyright and information consultant. One important lesson I learned is that some European museums assert copyright over items that might otherwise be considered within the public domain due to their age. This knowledge guided my work and the copyright assessment recommendations I gave to the project team.
While working on Project Vox, I saw the “Scholarship as Conversation” idea practiced repeatedly in the context of student scholarship. Much of the content for the project’s website is managed and created by students, including the site’s academic blog, which has gained national popularity. The blog has featured content by undergraduate students, at least one of whom I know has presented their Project Vox research abroad. The project will serve as a model for me when teaching information literacy to others and strengthening my own competencies.
LEARNING ARTIFACTS
- Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
- PATH Tutorial
- Discussion Board Post on Information Literacy
- LibGuide on Atheism in the United States
- Presentation on Copyright and Creative Commons
- Blog Post on Health Policy Literacy
References
1. About the Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://projectvox.org/about-the-project/
2. ACRL Board of Directors. (2016, June 25). ACRL board takes action on information literacy standards. ACRL Insider. Retrieved from https://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/archives/12126
3. American Library Association. (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Retrieved from https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/7668/ACRL%20Information%20Literacy%20Competency%20Standards%20for%20Higher%20Education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
4. Cope, J. (2009). Information literacy and social power. In Critical Library Instruction Theories and Methods (Vol. 13, No. 28, pp. 13-28). Litwin Books in association with GSE Research.
5. Donovan, C., & O’Donnell, S. (2013). The tyranny of tradition: How information paradigms limit librarians’ teaching and student scholarship. In Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional Praxis (Vol. 121, No. 140, pp. 121-140). Litwin Books in association with GSE Research.
6. Framework for information literacy for higher education. (February 9, 2015). American Library Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (Accessed April 17, 2019) Document ID: b910a6c4-6c8a-0d44-7dbc-a5dcbd509e3f
7. Freire, P. (1985). Reading the World and Reading the Word: An Interview with Paulo Freire. Language Arts, 62(1), 15-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.alumniproxy.lib.duke.edu/stable/41405241
8. More information on fair use. (2019, March). Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
9. Universal Design for Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/designing-your-course/universal-design-learning